Consumercarts is reader-supported. Learn more
Arctic MX-2 vs Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut: Comparison
Arctic MX-2 and Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut separate most on thermal conductivity: Arctic MX-2 at 5.6 W/mK, Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut at 12.5 W/mK, 55% in favour of Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut. They match on electrical conductivity, safety notes and paste segment.
Specs
| Specification |  |  |
|---|---|---|
| Compound Type | Carbon-Based | Silicone-Based |
| Brand | Arctic | Thermal Grizzly |
| Model | Arctic MX-2 | Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut , Kryonaut |
| Thermal Conductivity | 5.6 W/mK-55% | 12.5 W/mK |
| Electrical Conductivity | Insulating | Insulating |
| Package Size | 4g, 30g, 65g | 1g / 5.55g / 11.1g tubes |
| Recommended Use | Mainstream CPU/GPU | High-end CPU/GPU (including overclocking) |
| Reapplication Interval | Not consistently published | 1-2 years typical |
| Safety Notes | None | None |
| Paste Segment | Standard Paste | Standard Paste |
More comparisons in Thermal Paste
- Alphacool Apex 2 Thermal Paste vs Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut
- Arctic MX-2 vs Rosewill RCX-TC001
- Alphacool Apex Thermal Pad Soft 18W/mK vs Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut
- Arctic MX-2 vs Wakefield Thermal (Wakefield-Vette) Wakefield Solutions PL-1-3-1016-H Thermal Pad
- Alphacool Eisfrost Xtreme Liquid Metal Thermal Paste vs Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut
- Arctic MX-2 vs Phobya Thermal Pad Ultra 5W/mK